And these nuts wonder why there is no ‘affordable housing’ to be had! Just a slightly more extreme version than we see here in town. Don’t worry though, with all the locusts and lefty dummies moving here and yammering at our ‘town hall meetings’, we’ll be this stupid soon enough.
Tag: tree police
Tree Police Just Won’t Stop
Like the civic center, the Tree Police idea is apparently one of those turds that just refuse to stay buried. It has come up AGAIN at the last two City council meetings.
I previously went into what hypocrites some of the Goldfish are for even dreaming up this idea: they hand out “free” stuff (Stone Valley development electrical hookups: $70,000) and gobs of taxpayer money (S2M2 and former Council member: $150,000) to developers then get their panties in a bunch when the developers go out and cut down trees – which is kind of necessary when putting in roads, houses, ponds, etc.
The very next meeting after I pointed out the hypocrisy on these pages, Delena Toups (who is the mastermind of this idea) made sure to throw in that she is only talking about COMMERCIAL development and not RESIDENTIAL. Clearly she reads here regularly. It’s unfortunate she didn’t learn anything from the wisdom on these pages.
I guess that makes it ok then, eh? Ripping down, say, fifty trees for residential development is ok but ripping down two trees for commercial development is BAD BAD BAD! Makes total sense if you are a Goldfish, I suppose. Out here in the real world, however, a tree is a tree.
[I guess her head is REALLY gonna explode once Pope Eckermann or a future tenant (LOL!) gets into the corpse repository ‘business park’ and has to start removing trees to build all the big buildings to house all those ‘high tech jobs’ Mandy Walsh dreams of at night.]
Sorry, I just cannot type that with a straight face.
So already they are backpedaling so as to not look completely ridiculous by previously subsidizing (with tax dollars) the very behavior they are now upset about.
But it gets worse.
Enter Sandy Tompkins at the last City council meeting on Feb 10th. Yet another person with zero respect for (or understanding of) property rights or economic incentives.
You can listen to her screed (look it up, Monica) here (go to the the 48:38 minute mark)
First she informs us she was a school teacher for 33 years. Not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China. Just one of my pet peeves: I don’t care how many years anybody taught grade school. Doesn’t make you any smarter than anyone else. Oftentimes quite the opposite, in my vast experience.
Then she tells us a kind of sob story about how a lady who sold some property to developers (on Central Texas Expressway) didn’t want to sell it because she was afraid the developer would take out trees. Of course, she DID sell it and the trees WERE taken out – which is why she is telling this sad, sad story.
Um, sugar plum?? That’s what ‘selling’ means. You transfer all rights to that property and now have ZERO say in what subsequently gets done with it. If you love the trees so much, then feel free to choose them over the money. But she didn’t. She wanted the money. And the REASON the money was so good, is because they are going to develop it commercially. You would not have gotten anywhere NEAR the amount of cash you got if it was just sold so some tree-hugger who wanted to gaze at the trees all day long. You made a choice. Don’t cry about it now.
Sandy tells us she’s “a private property rights person”….but then she spends the next six and a half minutes proving otherwise by championing the tree police.
She continues blah, blah, blah for the next few minutes. Then her bright idea towards the end [51:38 mark] is “we need to let developers know that we care about trees in this community”, but then immediately admits “I don’t know how you put teeth into this and still have private property rights”.
BINGO!! EXACTLY. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It’s quite simple. That should be the end of discussion. Bye bye Tree Police.
But of course, it’s not. All the do-gooders love to hear the sound of their own voices and let everyone know how much they CARE. Much like the bleeding heart liberal lefties who whine about how we need more ‘free’ health care for everyone so the answer is to steal from one group and give to another. If they REALLY cared, they would go to medical school and become doctors and work for peanuts. But that’s HARD and requires WORK and SACRIFICE. Better to just boss everyone else around. But I digress….
Their answer to everything is more rules, more regulations, more enforcement. Kinda like the Tree Police.
So here is the Lampasshole Free Market Solution to this perceived problem – free of charge:
(1) People can do whatever they want with their property. Period.
(2) MOST people (I’d say 97%) value trees highly, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Therefore, it is in the DEVELOPER’S best interest to keep as many trees as possible since it INCREASES the value of the property (people’s desire for trees leads them to choose a property with many trees over a property with none – that preference shows up in market prices).
(3) STOP handing tax dollars to developers to subsidize their activities. You are distorting the free market. Some of these developments are extremely marginal and YOU DUMMIES handing them $150,000 in tax dollar subsidies might be just the push it takes to make them ‘profitable’. The ‘market clearing’ number of developments would be slightly lower without these distortions caused by YOU…and less trees are then destroyed.
You dummies still with me?
So far, the free market is taking care of incentives. But some people want MORE trees to replace the ones that HAD to be removed. I have an answer for that too:
Go plant some damn trees!! I wonder how many trees Delena Toups or Sandy Tompkins or any other Tree Police Cheerleaders have actually planted themselves in the last 10 years. Zero? Nobody is stopping you from planting a boatload of trees on the land you own. Go ahead and do it! Maybe offer to plant a tree or six on your neighbors property for free.
Ah, but that’s hard! It costs some money and takes some effort. How do I know this? Well, not to toot my own horn, but I have planted over 45 trees on my property since I bought it 8.5 years ago. That’s probably 45 more trees than all the Tree Police Cheerleaders have planted combined.
It cost me a chunk and was hard work to keep them watered in the summer those first few years. Digging holes, mulching, fertilizing, pruning, and running hoses all over the place….it kinda sucks. But, you see, I value trees also. I just don’t show that by puffing out my chest and standing at the microphone telling other people what to do with their property. Instead I think “hmmm….I like trees. I’ll plant some more on my land.”
I also built my house in such a spot as to not remove a single tree. Did I do this because Delana Toups or Sandy Tompkins and the Tree Police types demanded it? No. I acted on my own free will due to economic incentives. Imagine that!!
Unfortunately, instead of this terrible idea dying a quick death, the City council geniuses are thinking of taking it to a Town Hall meeting so the likes of Janet-Yoder-Kraeff-Crozier-Thunberg and other morons can cheer for it as well.
I can’t wait to see the abomination that results from all this pearl clutching. Should be something to behold.
The Tree Police Won’t Like This One Bit…
Ruh roh! The tree police are gonna be miffed about this! The nerve of S2M2 and ‘Greasy’ Chris Harrison! Going hat in hand to City council and scoring $150,000 in taxpayer money to help with their housing development…then going and ripping out a shit ton of trees – including these three beauties I photographed yesterday:
The entire property looks like a tornado hit it – splintered oak tree remnants everywhere. They DID leave that one single tree standing in the back ground there…so there’s that.
This one below kinda looks like a future water detention pond to me…the one the City handed S2M2 $150,000 for, after their former Council member ‘Greasy’ Chris Harrison was hired to beg them for it. Note the massive amounts of roots and splintered wood – this likely indicates destroyed trees, by my estimation:
Don’t even get me started on Deorald Finney and Stone Valley. I don’t think he left more than a tree or two standing – remember, the City gave him over $70,000 in ‘free’ electrical hookups, plus a bunch of dough for other stuff:
Just another example of ‘Goldfish Economics’: subsidize certain behavior and then get confused when that behavior increases.
Some Goldfish Want To Have Their Trees And Eat Them Too
The latest news out of City council is the desire to “protect trees” from those evil developers. You know, the very same developers they keep handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to in order to entice them to develop more. As I understand it, ‘developing’ land usually requires clearing it out of a bunch of trees and replacing them with houses and roads and drainage ponds. At least that’s what I saw over at Stone Valley and the S2M2 development – nothing but smooth ground for close to 100 new houses.
Perhaps the Goldfish already forgot (as they are wont to do) about the free electrical hookups they handed to Deorald Finney at Stone Valley (69 houses = approx $72,000 in lost revenue to City)? Or maybe they forgot about the $150,000 they are handing to S2M2 for a giant water detaining pond. Last I checked, water retention ponds don’t have giant oak trees in the middle of them – they are cleared out in the name of “development”.
The Goldfish proposing this hypocritical idea was Delana Toups. She mentioned TWICE in the article that she “was sad to see last week that an oak was knocked down for a new development”. Neither time did she actually mention WHICH development it was – which I suspect was not an accident. She would look pretty stupid complaining about the S2M2 or Stone Valley development after just handing them $150,000 of taxpayer money. I actually drove over to the S2M2 development a month ago, and saw a TON of trees had been destroyed.
So, they want growth and development so badly, they hand out huge checks and waive tons of fees for these private developers – GIVING these rich developers tax dollars so they can clear cut trees, build homes and make a huge profit on their houses.
THEN, the same person complains that a tree was cut down by a developer! I mean, I have to thank this group for giving me unending, low-hanging fruit to ridicule them with. It’s just too easy now.
Instead of infringing on peoples’ property rights to do what they want with their trees, how about STOPPING COMPLETELY all the handouts to your rich developer buddies and the scumbag former Council members who lobby for them (*cough* Chris Harrison *cough*)?
Nah – that would be too easy. Let’s instead make a whole new pile of regulations and restrictions on the rest of the population. Awesome idea!
In fairness, Mayor Talbert immediately came out against the idea of telling people what they can do with the land they own. Good for her. She is on the correct side of this issue.